DATE OF FILING :10/08/16
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of January 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 232/16
Between
Complainant : Sinto K.P., S/o Paily,
Kanjiramolayil House,
Keerithodu P.O.,
Punnayar, Aaramkooppu.
And
Opposite Party : 1 . Joseph, Proprietor,
Ajay Communications,
Chelachuvadu P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: N. K. Vinod Kumar)
2 . HCL Authorized Service Provider,
Smart Technologies,
1st Floor Tharan Tower near ICICI Bank Road,
Kadavanthra,
Cochin – 682-020.
O R D E R
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
Complainant had purchased a mobile phone Coolpad Dazen from the first opposite party for Rs.7500/- and he provide a warranty of one year. But after 5 months of purchase the phone shows various complaint like over heating and low battery charge. This matter was informed the first opposite party and he advised to conduct the authorized servicing centre Smart Technologies at Ernakulam. The second opposite party changed the software and return the same but again and again the same complaint is repeating. The opposite parties are not ready to rectify the defect of the phone. Hence complainant approached before the Forum for unfair trade practice done by the opposite parties and for compensation for the same.
The first opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed written version. In their version opposite parties denied all averments in the complaint
(Cont....2)
-2-
and further stated that the first opposite party issued a receipt for an amount of Rs.7500/- and the defect caused to the alleged mobile is due to mishandling. The first opposite party further contended that they never given an advice to the complainant that they denied the service of the mobile at the same time they extended their service and they were ready to produce it before the authorized service centre at Ernakulam. But the complainant ignored that the request of the first opposite party and he himself entrusted the mobile to the authorized service centre at Ernakulam and the complainant admitted that the second opposite party cured the defect of the mobile so may times. Thereafter the complainant not contacted the first opposite party and he directly entrusted the mobile to the authorized service centre. The first opposite party further contented that they are only a sub dealer of one Surya Agencies and the service and warranty are provided by the manufacturer of the mobile and the manufacturer is solely liable to answer this issue. As per the contention of the written version complainant added the manufacturer as the additional opposite party. Even though the notices accepted by the additional opposite party, they had not turned up to contest the matter. Hence additional the second opposite party, the manufacturer set exparte.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 were marked. Ext.P1 is the purchase bill, Ext.P2 is the warranty card, Ext and Ext.P3 is the cash receipt. From the defence side the first opposite party examined as DW1. No documents produced and marked.
Heard both sides,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Points:- We have carefully gone through the points of argument put forwarded by both counsels and materials on records. As per Ext.P1, complainant purchased the mobile in question for an amount of Rs.7500/- and it showed recurrent defect. Even though the mobile was produced before the authorised service centre of the second opposite party, the defect is repeated. No contrary evidence is produced by the first opposite party to convince
(Cont....3)
-3-
the Forum that the mobile is free from any defect. At the same time the second opposite party, the manufacturer, not responded to this issue and the second opposite party is set exparte. Since the manufacturer, who was given the warranty to the mobile phone is expected to raise their contention in this matter. But the second opposite party being the manufacturer is failed to produce any evidence at least to file a written objection to the allegation levelled against them.
Under the above circumstances, the Forum is of a considered view that since the manufacturer is the authority, who given warranty to the mobile, the second opposite party is liable to answer this issue. But the second opposite party failed to do so. Hence the forum, is of the opinion that the version of the complainant in this regard is acceptable and the issues are found against the second opposite party, the manufacturer. Hence the complaint is allowed, the second opposite party is directed to cure the defect of the mobile to the satisfaction of the complainant and also direct to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost, failing which the second opposite party is directed to replace the mobile or repay the purchase price of the mobile along with the above said cost within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Sinto K.P.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Joseph C.J.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The purchase bill
Ext.P2 - The warranty card
Ext.P3 - The cash receipt. Forwarded by Order,
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
